(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
The draft-ietf-oauth-jwt-bcp-03 is a Best Current Practice document providing
actionable guidance leading to secure implementation and deployment of JWTs.
The group decided that a Best Current Practice document, which can evolve over
time, is the best way to improve the quality and security of JWT
implementations and deployments.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
JSON Web Tokens, also known as JWTs, are URL-safe JSON-based security
tokens that contain a set of claims that can be signed and/or
encrypted. JWTs are being widely used and deployed as a simple
security token format in numerous protocols and applications, both in
the area of digital identity, and in other application areas. The
goal of this Best Current Practices document is to provide actionable
guidance leading to secure implementation and deployment of JWTs.
Working Group Summary:
This document has been written in response to reports about insecure
implementations and deployments of JWT. The working group is in agreement that
this document provides value to the community.
Document Quality:
The document has received substantial review and suggestions for threat
mitigations to cover. Many of the recommendations have been provided by
researchers and implementers outside the working group.
Personnel:
The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig.
The responsible Area Director is Eric Rescorla.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The document shepherd has reviewed this document and feels the document is
ready.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has no concerns with the level of reviews, as the
document was discussed and reviewed by many participants.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
Security review is always appreciated. The shepherd has, however, already asked
the IETF security community for review of this document.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
The document shepherd has no such concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes, all three authors have confirmed:
- Mike: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18195.html
- Dick: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18196.html
- Yaron: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg18197.html
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No such IPR disclosures.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is a solid support for this document from the WG.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No such threat or discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
There are no nits with this document.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such reviews are necessary.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There is a downref for RFC 6979. It is an algorithm document that is
appropriate as a normative reference.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No status change of any existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
There is no action for IANA.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
Not applicable.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
The document contains no formal languages.